ptatc

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) lol. So the Sox get credit for Hudson, even though they foolishly and inexplicably traded him after three starts? Yes, the Sox get credit for developing him in the farm system. Unless he spent an appreciable amount of time in Arizona's farm system, his talent was developed with the Sox. Just like I would give the Sox credit for developing Danks even though he hadn't spent much time in the majors before before we acquired him. the Texas farm system produced him. The sox farm system acquired him but didn't develop him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 06:21 PM) Don't forget Viciedo. Humber and DeAza aren't rookies or our organizational products, but they essentially are for all the money we spent on them. Same with "producing" Sergio Santos. since the Sox were the team to convert him from an IF to a pitcher, I would consider him a sox product. We "made" him a pitcher.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 06:24 PM) But that year, the "over the top" moves weren't farm related... AJ Iguchi Dye Hermanson El Duque I agree not the "whole" team was a farm system product but no team is. Those players are no more "over the top" than Garcia, Garland or Buherle. Most of that 25 man roster was farm system related.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) Out of that list, the contributions from the "Farm system" are pretty minimal. Loaiza wasn't a farm system product. Matt Karchner was a 30 year old journeyman we'd picked up from the Royals a few years earlier. Jenks spent 1/2 of a season in the Sox Farm System after the Angels tired of his act. I disagree, most of the pitchers and starting lineup came from trades or were in our farm system. I agree Loaiza wasn't. Karchner wasn't but Garland was 18 or 19 when we got him so he learned here. Jenks was 1/2 year but the sox turned him into a releiver. PK was here but it is still a product of the sytem (cameron) which got him here. Everett was a trade. No matter how you look at it most of the team was a product of the farm system or was acquired by a product of the farm system. Not everyone but most. even the great theo got really lucky that a twins castoff decided to start taking PEDs to laed boston to a Series.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) And the White Sox don't have to compete in the AL East, our division is much more wide open, historically. Looking at the 2005 roster, almost none of it was built internally, with the exceptions of Frank Thomas, Rowand, Crede and Buehrle. I guess you could count Jenks and Konerko, but not really. 20008 again proved that four well-timed acquisitions (Ramirez, Danks, Quentin and Floyd) can propel a team to the division title. Even though the 2005-06 teams were not homegrown, they had as good a chance as any the Blue Jays or Rays produced to have success for 3+ consecutive years at the major league level...because of that pitching staff. The problem is that Contreras and Garcia were never really the same (Jose for April/May 06 and then poof) and Garland had peaked with us. But we also had Javy Vazquez, on paper...things looked pretty much set and that didn't last another full seaosn before it fell apart. Injuries so often play a huge role. Based on the talent in our farm system from 1998-2001, we should have won at least one World Series. But that great farm system had almost nothing to do with why we eventually ended up winning it...the key players in that group, Rauch and Borchard, were total flops with the White Sox. I would disagree that the farm system had nothing to do with it. 1. Trading c. Lee brought us Podsednik. 2. Trading Jeremy reed, Olivo and morse brought Garcia 3. a trade for Garland. 4. A trade for contreras 5. Cameron brought PK 6. Sox developed Janks as a closer (starter in LA system) The farm sytem was used effectively to acquire the pieces needed to win. It's another way to use the farm system products. It's just not the way you would prefer to use it. This is the way KW prerefers to use the farm system, use suspects to acquire proven MLB talent. I think that's why many of the "minor league" people and analysts don't like him.

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) They have a real baseball guy and real gm and a game plan. But we have Bud Selig going to Soxfest-oh boy What happened the last time the north side hired a guy who had won a couple of world series brought his own guys here and was committed to rebuilding the farm system to turn this team around?

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) Jordan is taking care of things quite nicely here. I'm always amused that people think the only way to have a good farm system is to have 10 losing seasons in a row. Of course you can have a good one but the question earlier was having one of the top farm systems. The teams with top farm systems 1. typically draft high, 2. don't trade prospects for major league talent. these were the points, not if you can have a good farm system. Do the sox have a good farm system: no. Have they had good draft postions: no. Do they have a GM that would rather trade prospect for proven MLB talent: yes. Usually his trades work out, lately they haven't.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) They only recently revamped their scouting department, and that's when they started seeing big changes in their farm system. They haven't drafted that far from the Sox in that period: 2009: Jays 21st/ Sox 23rd 2010: Jays 11th/ Sox 13th 2011: Jays 21st/ Sox 23rd (lost for Dunn) The past few drafts the Jays have had a slight advantage on the Sox, yet in that same time period the Jays have built a top 3 system, and the Sox have fallen to dead last. You don't need high draft picks to succeed, but you do have invest resources and commit to it. Over paying unproven prospects does help. many players slide in the draft because some organization refuse to pay high prices. If you continually do this you will eventually hit on a few.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) Braves, Angels, Phillies, Yankees and Rangers all have a great farm system and major league team. So teams don't have to suck for many years to become a true contender. the rangers have been awful for years until just two years ago. their number of wins was in the 70's most years. I will give you that the phillies always seems to draft well regardless of position. It can be done, but it more rare than people think.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) Nice rebuttal. Thank You.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) They only recently revamped their scouting department, and that's when they started seeing big changes in their farm system. They haven't drafted that far from the Sox in that period: 2009: Jays 21st/ Sox 23rd 2010: Jays 11th/ Sox 13th 2011: Jays 21st/ Sox 23rd (lost for Dunn) The past few drafts the Jays have had a slight advantage on the Sox, yet in that same time period the Jays have built a top 3 system, and the Sox have fallen to dead last. You don't need high draft picks to succeed, but you do have invest resources and commit to it. you need to look a little deeper than that. part of it the sox top draft picks for a few of those years are in the MLB. Beckham, Sale etc. The job of the minors is to get players to the MLB or use as trades. If the sox are moving them to the MLB sooner, that isn't a penatly.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) Yeah, um, what rounds were Matt Moore, the consensus best pitching prospect in baseball, Jeremy Hellickson, the current AL ROY, and Desmond Jennings, a freakishly athletic OF who put up a 2.5 fWAR in about 60 games last year taken in? What round rounds was Mark Buerhle drafted in? There are always individual examples. however, the organization with the best minor leagues are usually the ones which have had the higher draft picks. There are always some exceptions but not every team has the best scout or GM.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) No, no you don't. Look at the Blue Jays for example A. their number of wins early in the decade: 2001: 80 2002:78 2003:86 2004:67 2005: 80 Those are poor records in which they could get good draft picks. As the decade progressed they improved a little with those picks. 2006: 87 2007: 83 2008: 86 2009: 75 2010: 85 2011: 81 The number of wins was still low which contiued to give them a good draft position. They have not had really good seasons which gave them poor draft positions. They have been in good draft positions so they aren't a real good example.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) So you're prepared for 10+ years of last place finishes in order to stockpile top-3 draft picks? I think this is point most don't get. In order to really build the farm system to one of the best, you need to be bad foir a long time. You obviously can have a good one with good scouting but to be Rays good you need to be bad for a long time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) It also fits with attempting to move salary at the trading deadline too (i.e. perhaps moving part of Peavy's contract away). I agree. The way the Danks contract is structured, it seems KW moves are hindered by Peavy's contract this upcoming year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) Actually, yes, I'm somewhat familiar with that, but let me also say that if my career was built in no small part on my ability to flick my wrists while flailing a piece of wood around my body, I'd put a hell of a lot more effort into it than I currently do. Even if you concentrate on them, it's really difficult to increase their size that much, not impossible but really difficult. The small wrist flexors and extensors just do not have the cross sectional size to hypertrophy like the quads which have 20X the cross sectional area.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) I certainly don't see that. Maybe he changed, but it's so subtle I can't fathom how you can clearly say "This player wasn't juicing because his body type didn't change". Especially when normal people add mass at about the same agem. Anyway...my point is, unless you saw Tetrahydrogestrinone's back in 1991 and verified that there was not an abnormal amount of acne, you've got at best a circumstantial case that the guy was clean. Given that he clearly was willing to do so later in his career, I simply choose to believe that the reason he was an athletic freak early in his career has a good chance of being chemical as well. And I have exactly the same amount of proof of that as people have that he was clean. I did see many of those players. and you're right you have as much definitive proof as i do. That's why i said it was my opinion. i am just basing it on my experience with these type of athletes, especially back then when just weightlifting was new to baseball. I still think it is fairly easy to pick most but not all of them out. In your pictures compare the size of his forearms. I don't know how much you've worked out but do you now how hard it is to significantly hypertorphy those small wrist flexors and extensors? Back to my original point that I think the writer's will do the same thing. many of the writer's think the know who did and who didn't and also when they started. i also think from knowing some writers that they will look at this ans individually decide on who they will let in and who they won't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) Adding Josh Willingham, Ryan Doumit, Jamey Carroll, and Jason Marquis to the roster while losing Kubel and Cuddyer earns compliments from you? Jonathan Sanchez, Yunieskey Betancourt, Jonathan Broxton, and Jose Mijares is an imposing set of additions? If either of those teams are getting better, it's because players on their current roster take steps forwards. Much like the White Sox. Agreed. The only team that has substantially improved itself in the central will be Detroit, if they land Garza. The whole central will be up for grabs with really no clear cut favorite, as it stands right now. However, it's only January so it's somewhat pointless. My prediction: Sox announce the signing of Cepedes (sp?) right before Soxfest as we know they like to add hype right before it to increase attention.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) If we're judging solely based on body type changes...I didn't even bring this name up first...when did Palmeiro's body type change? when he left the cubs. He was a different player and body type in Texas. He didn't bulk up to sosa size but he definitely changed. The cubs traded him because they though Grace had more power. this also isn't an exact science where ever single case these things happen. this is still all my opinion not proof. But I'm pretty confident in what I saw back then as I'm sure many people involved in baseball were, including the writers. Being with the players in locker rooms and training rooms is an advantage. for example, seeing acne on guys backs that look like burns because is was so bad is not real common in guys in their late 20's, unless other things are going on.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 08:17 PM) He wrote that he was stabbing McGwire's tuchus when Mac was a rookie in 1984. Kinda tough to do when Canseco was a rookie in 85 and McGwire was a rookie in 86.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 07:10 PM) Excellent point. It's well known that guys in the early and mid 80s were juicing. The guys really started to balloon as the roids got better and better and more plentiful, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if many players juiced well before the perceived steroid era I would disagree. One of the really accurate things in Canseco's book is that he made the PEDs popular in MLB. The only drugs prior to him in 86 or so were cocaine and amphetamines. There were probably were a few but there weren't many. At the time most players looked like normal people. Most didn't even lift weights.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) Everyone sorta gives Bonds the benefit of the doubt on his pre-1998 time. I simply don't. If he was willing to cheat after watching the 1998 home run derby, that stain should apply to his whole career. I'm not saying it doesn't. I wouldn't vote him in. your comment was that there was only one reason writers may vote him in. I stated that some writers may vote him in based on that the fact that he was one of the best players prior to the PEDs or in your cas the perceived PED use. I wouldn't but that is another reason why someone would. Personally, I wouldn't vote him in even if he didn't start using PEDs. He is the absolute worst person I've ever had to work with in my life. I don't hold grudges against anyone but he is the exception to my rule.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) And he couldnt' have used any PED's previously to get over an injury or get ready for a season? You have the blood samples? He couldn't have increased the dosages or changed over to the new drug? OK if you going to go down that road then no there is no proof he wasn't on them when he was younger. However, he didn't fit the physical profile and from the ones I've seen and worked with I don't believe he was on them. I guess Sammy Sosa was on them with the Rangers and Sox as well. Palmeiro must have taken them in college when he and Bobby Thigpen fought for ther HR title at Mississippi State.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) How do you know for certain that he didn't start PED's in 1984? If you watched him play, it was very obvious when he started using them. He went from a lean body and all around athlete to the muscle bound slugger later in his career. The amount of PEDs he used was staggering and changed his body rapidly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) In the middle of the 2002 season, retiring, after his tetrahydrogestrinone fueled 2001 campaign? I think he'd be facing the same thing as McGwire. The only reason people might put Bonds in anyway is that he actually did pass 756, even though he was chemically aided. Another reason he may get in is that he was one of the best players in the game before he started the PEDs. He was an a@# but a great all around player. Guys like McGwire, palmeiro and Piazza started the PEDs right away so it is unsure how good they could have been without them.